CitiField Dimensions

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Edgy MD wrote: Looking at all of the park factors at Baseball-Reference.com --- both batting and pitching --- the data is something of a mixed bag. National PBF PPF AVG American BPF PPF AVG COL 115 116 115.5 DET 105 104 104.5 CHC 103 104 103.5 KCR 105 104 104.5 MIA 103 104 103.5 MIN 102 103 102.5 WSN 104 102 103 TOR 102 102 102 MIL 102 103 102.5 BOS 102 101 101.5 ARI 102 102 102 HOU 101 102 101.5 STL 101 100 100.5 TEX 101 101 101 PHI 100 101 100.5 CHW 100 101 100.5 ATL 99 99 99 NYY 100 101 100.5 CIN 98 98 98 BAL 100 100 100 PIT 98 97 97.5 OAK 99 97 98 LAD 96 95 95.5 CLE 97 97 97 SFG 95 95 95 TBR 97 97 97 NYM 94 95 94.5 LAA 96 95 95.5 SDP 91 91 91 SEA 95 95 95 I mean, the data possibly leans toward teams in pitching-friendly parks being more successful, but it's certainly nothing definitive enough to bank on.

I think if you asked Joe Sixpack, or his stupider cousin, Joe Benigno, he'd say Philadelphia & Cincinnati are awesome hitting parks and that Miami is a pitcher's paradise.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position. Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here. Why of course! It's under attendance and miscellaneous! Naturally. What was my prior position?

I think the original dimensions were a disaster, and dumb. Cavernous dimension that favor the pitcher in every part of the field are the worst kind of dimensions, as I see it. Especially for a team that plays in a big market and is supposed to have a financial advantage over its competition in acquiring talent. Cavernous dimensions neutralize pitching and power advantages. If you're a perennially bad team playing in a small market and with no real hope of acquiring expensive free agents, then, maybe cavernous dimension might work.

[smg58]

The fangraphs overall park factor for Citi is 95, but with a 103 for home runs while basically everything else is suppressed relative to the average. In other words, the second set of dimensions produced the polar opposite of the impressions generated by the first set of dimensions, which for some reason have lingered. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that offense increased any due to the change (the old park factor was actually a 96). So I'm not sure what this is supposed to do.

Edgy MD wrote: I'm certain it's not a choice undertaken as an alternative to signing better players.

It might be seen as an enticement to power hitters, but Ike Davis and Lucas Duda have hit 30 with the new dimensions. And I imagine anybody who's played at Citi knows the second set of dimensions weren't so intimidating.

[Edgy MD]

smg58 wrote: So I'm not sure what this is supposed to do.

I think all signs point to what it's supposed to is bring the homer to right-center and center-right center back into play.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: Edgy MD wrote: That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position. Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here. Why of course! It's under attendance and miscellaneous! Naturally. What was my prior position? I think the original dimensions were a disaster, and dumb. Cavernous dimension that favor the pitcher in every part of the field are the worst kind of dimensions, as I see it. Especially for a team that plays in a big market and is supposed to have a financial advantage over its competition in acquiring talent. Cavernous dimensions neutralize pitching and power advantages. If you're a perennially bad team playing in a small market and with no real hope of acquiring expensive free agents, then, maybe cavernous dimension might work.

I'm not changing positions. I'm saying two different, reconcilable things. One - that there's value in tailoring the team to the park, or the park to the team. And two - that a big market team should never install cavernous dimensions that drastically reduce offense.

[Ceetar]

On the other hand, the original dimensions certainly favored players who drive the ball and aren't slow. Of which the Mets had quite a few. Wright, Reyes, Pagan, Beltran. And it wasn't unfavorable to lefty-pull hitters like Delgado. A lot of Beltran's power was lefty.

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: that a big market team should never install cavernous dimensions that drastically reduce offense.

I'm having trouble with this... a small market team should
install cavernous dimensions? Why?

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: That's fine and nuanced, but it seems to differ from your prior position. Park factors for the NL are here and for the AL are here. Why of course! It's under attendance and miscellaneous! Naturally. What was my prior position? I think the original dimensions were a disaster, and dumb. Cavernous dimension that favor the pitcher in every part of the field are the worst kind of dimensions, as I see it. Especially for a team that plays in a big market and is supposed to have a financial advantage over its competition in acquiring talent. Cavernous dimensions neutralize pitching and power advantages. If you're a perennially bad team playing in a small market and with no real hope of acquiring expensive free agents, then, maybe cavernous dimension might work. I'm not changing positions. I'm saying two different, reconcilable things. One - that there's value in tailoring the team to the park, or the park to the team. And two - that a big market team should never install cavernous dimensions that drastically reduce offense.

Yabbut you're also saying that

Anyways, park factors won't transform a 75 win team into a juggernaut. And an excellent team will be a force to reckon with no matter how their stadium plays.

which doesn't to me reconcile with the notion that large dimensions diminish market advantages. Which I don't think holds.

[nymr83]

d'Kong76 wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: that a big market team should never install cavernous dimensions that drastically reduce offense. I'm having trouble with this... a small market team should install cavernous dimensions? Why?

The only argument i can think of is that defense, particularly outfield defense, is cheaper to acquire than offense and plays best in these types of parks. the same is true of offense that is based on speed rather than power. but its a weak argument.

[batmagadanleadoff]

What I'm saying is that cavernous parks that suppress offense to a large degree neutralize the home team's pitching and power hitting advantages. Therefore, a big market team should never play in a cavernous park, because a big market team, given its economic advantage, is likelier to be a good team*. Extreme pitcher's parks undermine the home team's superiority. A perennially bad team, however, might be better off in a cavernous stadium so as to drag down the competition to their crappy level of play.


* "Big market" team, as used here, is synonymous with a wealthy team that can outspend most of its competitors. As a fan of the present Mets, I should know better.

[Edgy MD]

I'd like you to outline the process by which you figure that happens.

You may be right, but, to my way of thinking, shallow walls are the great equalizer. If you build walls 250 feet away, Rey Ord��ez is going to hit as many homers as Mark McGwire --- perhaps more, because of Rey-O's superior contact rates. McGwire won't get extra points and the Cardinals won't get extra runs because his homers go 480 feet while Rey's go only 280 feet. Once they clear the fence, all homers are equal.

Now, if you truly are advantaged, and your roster is composed mostly of gods while the other teams are mostly strapped with mere mortals, than it would seemingly behoove you to build walls only gods can reach.

[Guest d'Kong76]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: A perennially bad team, however, might be better off in a cavernous stadium so as to drag down the competition to their crappy level of play.

Now it's might be?

batmagadanleadoff wrote: * "Big market" team, as used here, is synonymous with a wealthy team that can outspend most of its competitors. As a fan of the present Mets, I should know better.

We knew that, lol.

[Edgy MD]

One of those annual articles about how the Mets need to copy the model of the World Series teams, who both play in expansive parks.

Now, like most of such articles, their data is highly selective --- what of the friendly dimensions of the home park of the (no longer) defending champion Red Sox? --- but it's certainly an argument for deep dimensions, citing one large and one small market.

[Lefty Specialist]

Yeah, we've seen this before......

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/mets/post/_/id/78767/mets-aim-to-follow-red-sox-model


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/harper-watch-closely-mets-young-arms-dominating-postseason-article-1.1483409

[metirish]

Tom Kaminski @TomKaminskiWCBS
From @wcbs880 Chopper 880: Work has begun on moving in right-center field fence at #CitiField. #Mets #LGM

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Don't like that the wall appears to be getting off the parallel with the "bridge" section of the building. It's the only thing that made sense of its weird configuration in the first place.

Also, that looks like a dramatic adjustment.

[Edgy MD]

Golly.

[Centerfield]

Wait, that existing wall we are seeing are the original dimensions right? I think the current fence has been removed.

[Edgy MD]

Yeah, that was my understanding.

Still struck me dramatically.

[Ceetar]

I think it's just straightening the wall



Look at the Xerox ad (The one in the left of the picture) it bends away from home plate. make it straight.

Look atthe picture from the chopper. There's a wide spot on the fence which I imagine is before/after. 3 feet?

[Zvon]

metirish wrote: Ceetar wrote:

Lets get both pics onto this page.
I didn't realize there was that much dead space between the OF wall and CF stands/vis bullpen.

[batmagadanleadoff]

[fimg=722:3m66pjkr]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B09DjOxCIAE3Afd.jpg:large[/fimg:3m66pjkr]

Is that "white track" where the new wall will be? Because if so, that looks like a major overhaul of dimensions. What is that ---- 15 ... 20 feet closer?

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: [fimg=722]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B09DjOxCIAE3Afd.jpg:large[/fimg] Is that "white track" where the new wall will be? Because if so, that looks like a major overhaul of dimensions. What is that ---- 15 ... 20 feet closer?

like..4? look at the white on the wall. that's the difference.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: batmagadanleadoff wrote: [fimg=722]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B09DjOxCIAE3Afd.jpg:large[/fimg] Is that "white track" where the new wall will be? Because if so, that looks like a major overhaul of dimensions. What is that ---- 15 ... 20 feet closer? like..4? look at the white on the wall. that's the difference.

Ceets, I'm not following you. No comprendo.

[Ceetar]

There's a white panel on the CF wall by the apple. That's the difference between 2013-2014 dimensions and 2015 dimensions.

prior to next year, the wall curve out a little bit before going across towards the apple. now it'll stay straighter.

[seawolf17]

You're looking at the old old dimensions there. There's a white panel on the wall, just to the right of the apple, that shows the difference; and a chalky-looking track that leads out from the right side of that white panel that shows where the 2014 wall was. So it's only a small move.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I'm still all mixed up. How does a white panel stuck on a wall tell me anything? Am I supposed to be able to read the panel for information? And that long metal track in the dirt, just above some vehicle of sorts, what's that? Does that track mark where the wall was for the last three seasons?

[Ceetar]

here. courtesy of The7Line

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: here. courtesy of The7Line

Thanks. All clear.

[ashie62]

Well done.